greptile-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap. get_repository_info retrieves metadata, greptile_env_check verifies setup, greptile_help provides documentation, index_repository prepares data, and query_repository performs searches. An agent can easily differentiate them.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming is mixed: three tools use a verb_noun pattern (get_repository_info, index_repository, query_repository), while two use a noun_verb pattern (greptile_env_check, greptile_help). This inconsistency is noticeable but still readable, as all names are descriptive and in snake_case.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for its purpose of repository indexing and querying. Each tool earns its place by covering essential functions like setup, indexing, querying, and help, without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core workflow for a repository search service: environment setup, indexing, querying, and metadata retrieval, with a help tool for guidance. A minor gap is the lack of tools for managing indexed repositories (e.g., delete or update), but agents can work around this.
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves information, implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'indexed' means operationally. The description is minimal and lacks context about the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 required parameters. It doesn't explain what 'indexed' entails, what 'status and metadata' includes, or the response format. For a retrieval tool with structured inputs, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Repository host', 'Repository in owner/repo format', 'Branch that was indexed'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining format constraints or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'information about an indexed repository', specifying it includes 'status and metadata'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'index_repository' (which creates) and 'query_repository' (which searches content), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'greptile_env_check' or 'greptile_help' in terms of scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the repository must already be indexed), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'query_repository' for different types of information needs. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions the outcome ('make it searchable') but omits critical details: whether indexing is idempotent, time-consuming, or requires specific permissions; what 'searchable' entails (e.g., content types indexed); or side effects like notifications. The 'reload' and 'notify' parameters hint at reprocessing and notifications, but the description doesn't explain these behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('index a repository') and purpose ('make it searchable'). It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. Structure is clear but minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (indexing implies write operation), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, performance), output format, error handling, or dependencies. For a 5-parameter tool that modifies state, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (remote, repository, branch, reload, notify). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying indexing scope, but doesn't detail how parameters interact (e.g., 'reload' vs. initial indexing). Baseline is 3 since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('index') and resource ('repository') with a specific purpose ('to make it searchable for future queries'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_repository_info' (read-only info) and 'query_repository' (search after indexing), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what 'indexing' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance, stating the tool makes repositories searchable for future queries, which implies it should be used before querying. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use rules (e.g., prerequisites, timing), when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., if already indexed), or named alternatives like 'reload' parameter for reprocessing. No sibling tools are referenced for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'natural language querying' and 'detailed answers with code references,' but fails to describe critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes a 'detailed answer.' For a complex tool with 7 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's core functionality without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks information on behavioral traits, output format, error conditions, and how it differs from siblings. For a query tool that likely returns structured data, the absence of output details and usage context makes it incomplete for effective agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying natural language input for the 'query' parameter. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or interactions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Query repositories using natural language to get detailed answers with code references.' It specifies the action (query), resource (repositories), and outcome (detailed answers with code references). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_repository_info' or 'index_repository', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_repository_info' for metadata or 'index_repository' for preparation, nor does it specify scenarios where this tool is preferred. This lack of comparative context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—for example, whether it's a read-only check, what output format to expect, if it has side effects, or any error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operational characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations, which are important even for simple tools to ensure correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter information, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose. A baseline score of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to explain nonexistent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as checking environment variable configuration and setup status, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'get_repository_info' or 'greptile_help', which might also provide status information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer when this check is appropriate compared to other tools on the server.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool provides 'comprehensive help and usage examples,' which suggests it's a read-only, informational resource without side effects. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like response format, potential rate limits, or error handling, which would be useful given the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly conveys the tool's function without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get comprehensive help and usage examples') and specifies the scope ('for all Greptile MCP tools'), making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't address potential context like what 'comprehensive help' includes, whether it's interactive, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a help tool in this environment, more detail on output or usage scenarios would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get comprehensive help and usage examples for all Greptile MCP tools.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('help and usage examples'), and the scope ('for all Greptile MCP tools') is well-defined. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'greptile_env_check' which might also provide system information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context—when users need help or examples for Greptile tools—but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_repository_info' or 'query_repository', leaving usage somewhat open to interpretation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![greptile-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sosacrazy126/greptile-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sosacrazy126/greptile-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![greptile-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sosacrazy126/greptile-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sosacrazy126/greptile-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sosacrazy126/greptile-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server